Mr Rubens continued: "This was never about the money. It wasn’t even a crusade against easyJet. It was the principle. I was just so infuriated by the arrogance of the airline, who refused to hear my concerns because it was in their terms and conditions. I wanted to prove a point. Morally how can they do that to people? I couldn’t let it rest.

"Too many people accept their fate because it is written in a company's terms and conditions.

"I have been contacted by many people who have agreed with me, I am chuffed to have won the case. I knew my argument was right and was resistant to being ripped off.

Share article

"All terms and conditions are subject to fairness, and I hope this sets an example."

The Watford Observer made numerous attempts to contact easyJet, however they had not responded at the time of going to publication.

Promoted Stories

Comments (4)

Ha! Excellent. I really dislike all these additional fees and charges that companies add on to headline prices. Estate agents are amongst the worse - particularly one of the ones that has an office on St. Alban's Road; they took my holding deposit after I balked at them requesting a total of four different fees on two separate occasions after I'd specifically asked them is that all the fees and deposits required. I've no objection to an itemised bill for fees, but when they keep coming up with new ones to the point where every time you leave their office you're unexpectedly £200 lighter, well it really grinds my gears. It smacks of dishonesty and sneaky underhandedness, and easyJet deserved to be slapped for that one.

Ha! Excellent. I really dislike all these additional fees and charges that companies add on to headline prices. Estate agents are amongst the worse - particularly one of the ones that has an office on St. Alban's Road; they took my holding deposit after I balked at them requesting a total of four different fees on two separate occasions after I'd specifically asked them is that all the fees and deposits required. I've no objection to an itemised bill for fees, but when they keep coming up with new ones to the point where every time you leave their office you're unexpectedly £200 lighter, well it really grinds my gears. It smacks of dishonesty and sneaky underhandedness, and easyJet deserved to be slapped for that one.TRT

Ha! Excellent. I really dislike all these additional fees and charges that companies add on to headline prices. Estate agents are amongst the worse - particularly one of the ones that has an office on St. Alban's Road; they took my holding deposit after I balked at them requesting a total of four different fees on two separate occasions after I'd specifically asked them is that all the fees and deposits required. I've no objection to an itemised bill for fees, but when they keep coming up with new ones to the point where every time you leave their office you're unexpectedly £200 lighter, well it really grinds my gears. It smacks of dishonesty and sneaky underhandedness, and easyJet deserved to be slapped for that one.

Score: 5

overhere says...2:59pm Wed 9 Jul 14

He should have also challenged the £17 credit card charge. In the original transaction of £300 the credit card company charge 1.75% of the amount to the retailer plus the cost of the card transaction, which for a company the size of EasyJet would be about 20p meaning that the cost to EasyJet charge should have been about £5.50 but as he attempted to cancel the original transaction none of the £5.50 would have been charged to EasyJet, only the cost of processing the cancellation "fee" for the transaction of 2x£30+£58 would be about £2.30 not £17. I thought the EU had banned companies from charging unrealistic credit card fees?

He should have also challenged the £17 credit card charge. In the original transaction of £300 the credit card company charge 1.75% of the amount to the retailer plus the cost of the card transaction, which for a company the size of EasyJet would be about 20p meaning that the cost to EasyJet charge should have been about £5.50 but as he attempted to cancel the original transaction none of the £5.50 would have been charged to EasyJet, only the cost of processing the cancellation "fee" for the transaction of 2x£30+£58 would be about £2.30 not £17.
I thought the EU had banned companies from charging unrealistic credit card fees?overhere

He should have also challenged the £17 credit card charge. In the original transaction of £300 the credit card company charge 1.75% of the amount to the retailer plus the cost of the card transaction, which for a company the size of EasyJet would be about 20p meaning that the cost to EasyJet charge should have been about £5.50 but as he attempted to cancel the original transaction none of the £5.50 would have been charged to EasyJet, only the cost of processing the cancellation "fee" for the transaction of 2x£30+£58 would be about £2.30 not £17. I thought the EU had banned companies from charging unrealistic credit card fees?

Score: 7

Popeonarope says...5:22pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Excellent. Well done Mr Rubens! " I knew my argument was write and was resistant to being ripped off." WO...Right. :o)

Excellent. Well done Mr Rubens!
" I knew my argument was write and was resistant to being ripped off."
WO...Right. :o)Popeonarope

Excellent. Well done Mr Rubens! " I knew my argument was write and was resistant to being ripped off." WO...Right. :o)

Score: 3

Honest Rog says...2:45am Fri 11 Jul 14

Well done Mr Rubens! The fact that Judge Arnold described Easyjet's terms and conditions as "unreasonable" surely leaves the door open for further legal challenges to these sneaky charges.

Well done Mr Rubens! The fact that Judge Arnold described Easyjet's terms and conditions as "unreasonable" surely leaves the door open for further legal challenges to these sneaky charges.Honest Rog

Well done Mr Rubens! The fact that Judge Arnold described Easyjet's terms and conditions as "unreasonable" surely leaves the door open for further legal challenges to these sneaky charges.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here